I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly. Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

justtray:No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner.

Well, I can see when any further conversation is an exercise in futility. Listen, I'm going to go ahead and let you go but I'll say this to you before I go.

Were you one of the people who shrieked and moaned about how the Patriot Act trampled your rights? Maybe not but many did. Were you one of the ones who didn't care for the government ordering banks to report deposits over a certain amount supposedly as a measure to curtail drug activity? Again, maybe not. Maybe you're one of the ones who don't care for government defined "free speech zones" for people who wish to protest. Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of how you answer on any of those, do you see the government ever relinquishing any of those restrictions? Ever seen a government spend LESS in a year than in a previous year? Even when we had the surplus not too many years ago, did you see the government go "whoops, took too much money...we'll give that back"?

I'm going to go ahead and guess you wouldn't like the government telling you what you can and cannot say or write. I'll guess you probably wouldn't like it if the police decided to pull you over and subject you and yours to a cavity search on the side of the road. Maybe if the police claimed they found you were smuggling 10 pounds of heroin in your rectum that you'd like to actually have a trial before being sentenced to life in prison? Or maybe, rather than prison, they decide to simply sell you into a life of slavery. You'd be okay with that? Maybe if you're a woman you'd like to have a vote?

Would you be cool with giving up the rights that mean little to you personally? I mean, if you're not saying anything then losing the right to free speech wouldn't mean anything to you personally right? If you're not a criminal then you really have nothing to fear from warrantless searches of you and your property, right? You're not a criminal so the right to a trial won't affect you...so surely you must be okay with jettisoning the 5th through 8th amendments, right? And hey, since you might not be black or a woman losing the 13th, 15th and 19th amendments won't even affect you.

But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed". No other right takes that extra statement but the second. That's because the framers knew that even as good a system as a republic could falter and the government could turn against its own people. The founding fathers knew that no matter how thoroughly they tried to set it up, our government can and will eventually falter...and when governments go bad it's the people that suffer and its the people that have to do something about it. Ergo, give the people the right to keep and bear arms so that if/when the situation warrants it, they can effect change.

Just because you're short sighted enough to want to kiss off the only right that has any chance of guaranteeing the rest of them doesn't mean your decision is wise or even informed.

Keeve:I think your first assumption is correct. The gun club is mad at the city council so they're taking it out on the cops. Very misdirected and probably not a smart move.

If you don't think it through, yes, this could be seen as taking it out on the cops. However, it's not. There are two major points:

1 - They are actively attacking the wallet of a local business. That business should be allowed to show them that there are consequences to their actions.2 - The cops really won't be impacted all that much. What will happen, however, is that the city will spend more money to either have them train somewhere else (transportation, increased range fees, or both).

Voting with one's wallet is an accepted way of protest. This is a good take on that concept.

I'm sorry, but this is remarkably dumb. Police need to have advantages over criminals. That includes heavier firepower. If you think the good guys need to give the bad guys a fair chance, then you're completely out of touch with reality.

We (citizens) are the good guys. Why is it so important for the police to outgun us? Why would you want both police and criminals to have an advantage over us?

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that the goal isnt total prevention, but to lower gun related homicide.

Again, argument soundly defeated.

Then try to ban handguns. They account for the lion's share of deaths due to firearms (some of them are even unlawful homicides, as opposed to justifiable homicide as self defense, or shootings by law enforcement).

The weapons you are focusing on are involved in such a small percentage of overall deaths, much less violent crime, that they are statistically insignificant. The DoJ itself concluded that their use in crime was so minial before, during, and after the 1994 ban that it was impossible to calculate any discernible impact from the federal ban.

But let's ignore all that for a moment. Let's take a look at the ban Sen. Feinstien has proposed. From the text of that bill, explain to me exactly how any measure of that law will directly prevent violent crime. Find one part of the statute that will directly and demonstrably BLOCK a criminal act.

We'll sit here while you search in vain.

Even the bill's author and sponsors admit it won't do that, or even come close. You are championing supposed benefits of a law that even those who wrote it openly and explicitly admit it is incapable of.

justtray:Now THIS is ironic coming from someone who has to rely on a 4 year old conservative activist, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, soon to be repealed supreme court decision to have any argument whatsoever.

Heller was willfully ignorant?

Right, because when the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments refer to "the people," they confer an individual right. With the 2nd Amendment though, "the people" is referring to a collective right.

Then we'll leave his head on an intellectual pike as a warning to other loudmouthed fools. I'm sick of this virulent, cancerous idiocy and wanton disregard for not only our laws and legal traditions but the principles and logic they were painstakingly built upon. The balance of power and carefully-crafted structures of our constitution and its mechanics were not slapshod together as a conglomeration of suggestions and harebrained ideas, they were assembled from painful experience and paid for dearly.

And now fools like this are running rampant willfully misrepresenting the inherent logic those structures were built upon in an effort to topple the whole thing and build something abhorrent and dangerous in its place.

justtray:Is clearly not about not wanting police to have superior firepower. Its about trying to get someone to say, "police have to have it," so then you can say, "if they do we do too!" And that argument is just never going to gain traction amongst non gun nuts.

You've got it backwards: We already have it. The police already have it. It's been that way for decades, and we're fine with it.

Now the government (in this case, a local one) wants to make it so that only the police have it.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

They aren't trying to get away with something, they are making a point. One that seems to be lost on you...

Because they are civillians themselves and in no sense need to outgun the public to perform their duties.

I said without semantic argument. Police are law enforcement. Civilians are NOT.

Who's getting all semantic now? You just destroyed your own argument.

By the way, you're leaving off the highly inconvenient (for you) prefatory "civilian" - i.e, civilian law enforcement. As in not military. Which is why the military branches have their own internal law enforcement system that applies to them, separate from the civilian law enforcement system, and why the military is barred from civilian law enforcement activity by way of posse comitatus.

Tell me again, does your local sheriff get orders from NORCOM by way of the Pentagon and the Dept. of Defense?

Does your local constabulary receive combat pay and military retiree benefits?

Are local riot cops where you live bound by General Orders, ROE, and reprimanded every time they employ CS, CN or pepper spray chemical weapons on civilians and non-combatants in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Convention?

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

the city doesn't have its own range, so they had been using the club range for their (required) training/qualifying....the City said they wanted to ban "assault" weapons and magazines, so the club said "don't expect us to allow you to use our facilities then"..

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

Look up the phrase posse cometatus, and the difference between Title 10 and Title 32 federal employees.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

Wayne 985:Bad. Still not as bad as a black man having his nuts clipped like a steer.

If you're going to be disingenuous, fine. If that isn't actually your intention, then try not comparing the banal letter of historical law on one side with the honest (but anecdotal) actions committed by the other. The 3rd amendment did not come out of a void, it came in response to the behavior of quartered soldiers during and after the 7 years war. Of course their behavior in the myriad wars throughout human history also indicated that allowing this was a bad idea.

Most quartered soldiers weren't abusive jackwagons, but most slaves weren't treated as badly as you mention either. Sometimes though, a slave got clipped, and sometimes hosts were raped or worse.

Saying one of those is more or less wrong than the other is a peculiar brand of moral relativism I do not subscribe to. In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes.

enforcerpsu:morgen_benner: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

I'l bite, though I truly hope I'm feeding a troll:

DC vs Heller ruled that we indeed do have the right to private ownership.

Anyone who tries to tell me the 2nd amendment was referring to a state militia instantly gets labeled as an idiot because the 2nd amendment clearly defines an individual's right to own firearms. This has been beaten to death and that side of the argument needs to stop using it. It makes them look extremely ignorant.

Instead of calling them idiots try pointing out that the supreme court deemed it an individual right (a militia could be just one person after all)

2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. ChicagoThese rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right

Wayne 985:Ethically, he's not wrong at all. The 13th amendment prohibits slavery. The 3rd prohibits troops from quartering themselves in your home. Those are not of equal value and the 13th is clearly more important.

until they decide that your spare bedroom would be put to better use housing soldiers that you also have to feed and support. That's a form of slavery as well.

You can pick and choose which are more important to you. I, on the other hand, will jealously guard them all.

stonicus:I'm fine with the current ruling and situation. Just pointing out that the intent of the founding fathers was ruled impotent by the Heller decision. So just curious as to why people keep bringing it up. Don't say "militia, fight tyranny, revolution, etc" Just say "court said we could, no other reason."

(written to the proverbial you, by this part in the thread, the replies and quotes are so intermingled).

Like much of what you've said, that's pretty damned wrong. Look, it's not hard to find (even if it invalidates most of the things you're saying). Being accurate in a debate is kind of important. From the text of the Heller decision:

Held:

1. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

What's nice though is that the decision then goes to an additional length to explain why the language is the way it is:

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.

It can't be made a whole lot clearer than that. The foremost scholars on the constitution, who use it as an active tool in the judicial considerations every day, have affirmed what most people already know and have been kind enough to correct the false notions that some (including, unfortunately, many people in this thread) hold.

PsiChick:Epicedion: PsiChick: ...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian.

A whole year? Wow. They must be the most well-trained and responsible people on the planet.

Joe Blowme: But they are people just like you and me and can go psycho just as easy as you or me... just looks a that Vegas cop who killed his family the other day. They are not super heroes. Just look at all the police corruption in Chicago and other cities. History, how does it work?

OgreMagi: The fundamental difference is regular gun owners are better trained with their firearms than the police. Gun owners tend to go to the range on a regular basis, many go every week. Police officers go once a year or two to practice up for their legally required qualification. They tend to be terrible shots.

It would be so nice if people paid attention to the actual point I was making. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact that, even if police officers tend to be undertrained assholes, even in my own opinion, a civilian and police officer are different things and logically will need different weapons. It's about the fundamental nature of 'police officer' v. 'civilian', not the current state of America's police force.

Fine, you are still wrong. They are civililans and are supposed to abide by the same laws as we do. In fact, they need to be held to a higher standard because they are in a position to abuse the trust (power) we have given to them.

justtray:I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

America is not about being "safe".

Totalitarian states who control every aspect of their subject's lives and kill those who are deemed problematic to the State - like the kind my grandfather and millions of others fought and bled to topple - are about being "safe".

America is about being free.

If you're using Singapore as a supporting argument in a debate about American legal and constitutional theory, you're in the completely wrong place.

rufus-t-firefly:Gosling: BgJonson79: Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are.

It's called commandeering. If the cops NEED to have a facility to train their personnel, and your gun range is the only facility in the area, guess what? Your gun range is now a police training facility.

Eminent domain.

"Here's a check for what we say your property is worth...it's ours now."

I'm shocked that those who support gun grabbing also support land grabbing.

Kit Fister:dr-shotgun: justtray: Now THIS is ironic coming from someone who has to rely on a 4 year old conservative activist, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, soon to be repealed supreme court decision to have any argument whatsoever.

Heller was willfully ignorant?

Right, because when the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments refer to "the people," they confer an individual right. With the 2nd Amendment though, "the people" is referring to a collective right.

Someone apparently also missed civics class the day they explained that Supreme Court rulings cannot be repealed.

Erm .... don't overreach:

"Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause."-Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406-407, 410 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.-, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).Stare decisis is a good thing but it can be overturned. That said, the 2nd amendment should not have it's "of the people" interpreted any differently than any other amendment with that phrase in it (1st, 4th, et al).s

morgen_benner:macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

I'l bite, though I truly hope I'm feeding a troll:

DC vs Heller ruled that we indeed do have the right to private ownership.

Anyone who tries to tell me the 2nd amendment was referring to a state militia instantly gets labeled as an idiot because the 2nd amendment clearly defines an individual's right to own firearms. This has been beaten to death and that side of the argument needs to stop using it. It makes them look extremely ignorant.

Perducci:"It is a constitutional issue. I mean, it's not just a Second Amendment constitutional issue; but it's also a constitutional issue for Vermont. We have laws that have the state governing our gun controls in this area and they're looking to supersede those," he said.

Because laws can never change over time, right genius?

Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.

A process exists for changing the Constitution. Until that process is followed, however, the Constitution stands as it is.

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly. Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

Argument defeated.

LOL @ smug conclusion. Our homicide is also 4x higher than in Canada, where guns are legal. And our homicide rate is FAR lower than in many other countries in eastern Europe, middle and south America... one might be drawn to conclude that it's a complex subject and not easily correlated with the presence or absence of guns.

And don't forget, all assault rifles are a mere fraction of overall firearms in the population, yet are used in less than 2% of all firearm crimes. To say nothing of the fact that it isn't as if those murders would disappear; as I said in another thread, it isn't like someone intent on committing a crime is gonna say "I can't have the big evil looking gun I want, so instead of killing this guy, I'm gonna go play xBox."

Oh, and another fun thing to not forget - even though assault rifle sales have been staggeringly massive over the last 5 years (to the tune of about a million ARs and AKs being sold a year), murders with rifles have declined at an even faster rate (a 14% decline in all firearm murders since 2007, while rifle murders have declined 28%).

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

Yup. Robert Peel:

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

ronaprhys:I don't think there'd be an issue with transporting your firearm from home to the shoot. I believe a Federal law already exists that allows one to transport a firearm, even if it's banned in that locality, without fear of reprisal or seizure.

I could easily be wrong, but haven't people been arrested and prosecuted in D.C. for exactly this, transporting guns or magazines that violate the city laws though the city limits? Didn't someone in New Jersey go to prison for something akin to this (though, IIRC, his case had some odd complications).

Keeve:I think your first assumption is correct. The gun club is mad at the city council so they're taking it out on the cops. Very misdirected and probably not a smart move.

The gun club doesn't have many options here to protest where the city will feel it. Assuming that they are the only place where the police can practice that's reasonably close by or affordable, they have a legal way to protest that will effect the city bottom line. Now, they either have to find a different facility that may be further away or more expensive or build their own somewhere. The city can choose either to have their ordinance or pay more money out.

MadCat221:dittybopper: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

This.

North Hollywood Shootout.

What about it? The police had to borrow rifles from a local gun store. If they had deer rifles in their trunks, as was common practice decades ago, they would have made short work of those two. The type of rifles commonly used to hunt big game would have readily penetrated the body armor they used.

The point is, if the police want AR-15's, that's fine, so long as non-law enforcement civilians also get to own them. Parity of force, and all that.

A Lesson to be Learned on the Anniversary of Wounded KneeDecember 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly. Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

Argument defeated.

How about asking yourself this: "why don't we have 4x as many violent crimes as the UK does?"

OR

"What condition exists in the UK that makes criminals more likely to commit a violent crime against another person than here in the United States?"

Believe it or not, a thug wants to continue being a thug even after he commits his crimes. If committing those crimes meant a significant chance he might not be able to continue his career in thuggery, he might have a moment of pause to consider his actions in advance.

Maybe you believe all we need to concentrate on is murder. Perhaps you're okay with people getting raped, robbed and having the shiat beaten out of them...all as long as someone doesn't die. Problem is, most of the people that die in the United States by gun violence are, themselves, criminals. Gang and drug violence is where the majority of firearm related deaths happen here.

Anyway, most of the people who get raped, robbed and put into the hospital probably don't agree with you.

justtray:thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.

Thank God you've shot down the often repeated argument that an assault weapon ban would eliminate violent crime. I've been getting tired of hearing that repeated over and over by... wait, who said that again?

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

They aren't trying to get away with something, they are making a point. One that seems to be lost on you...

"It is a constitutional issue. I mean, it's not just a Second Amendment constitutional issue; but it's also a constitutional issue for Vermont. We have laws that have the state governing our gun controls in this area and they're looking to supersede those," he said.

"If you're going to a shoot, say in one end of Vermont to the other, you have to check the laws for every town in between, and you will pass through a half a dozen different towns, and that makes it almost impossible for someone to stay as a legal gun owner, and that's what we're concerned about," he said.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

No they are not the same as the military. State/Municipal/County =/= Federal

Is this because you're incapable of explaining why police should be better-armed than other civilians without resorting to breathless hyperbole? Also, you're going to have a very difficult time hearing anything people post on this website unless you use Narrator.

Has anyone ever wondered who all the gun owners and anti-firearms people who hook up man-on-man style are? I know it seems like an odd couple kind of thing, but there are a lot of anti-firearms guys who have apparently sucked a lot of gun owner dick. They're always talking about it...the size, their feelings about it, etc. Always when people are talking about firearms, these guys come in and start talking about other guys' junk, and to listen to them, they've obviously had a pretty large sample size.

Obviously, I'm not painting either gun-owners or anti-firearms people as closeted homosexuals...that would be silly...but these guys who really have nothing to add to a discussion about weapons other than talking about all the gun-owner dick they've experienced...they're pretty weird.

mongbiohazard:dittybopper: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

This.

Damn right, that.

Also, the dumbass tag is misplaced here. Should have been a hero tag.

Agreed on all counts, but this is Fark, where saying that the Second Amendment (one of ten such Amendments in the Bill of Rights) is a right and not a privilege is liable to get you labeled with the nickname "Lanza."

militia: : the whole body of able-bodied male [and female] citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service (and female added by me because this is the 21st century. With women now openly approved to serve in combat roles, it's only a matter of time before we are required to register for selective service just like many other countries in the world--a law which I would endorse)

infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

encroach: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

All definitions from Merriam-Webster. Since Webster came of age during the American Revolution and wrote his dictionary for the purpose of codifying American English, I tend to stick to his definitions when defining words in the Constitution, as I'm of the opinion that Noah Webster is the definitive source for such definitions.

"...rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges. ...sooner or later the people in this country are going to realize the government doesn't give a fark about them. the government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply doesn't give a fark about you. It's interested in it's own power. That's the only thing...keeping it, and expanding wherever possible." --George Carlin

See, the problem with the anti-gun lobby (and no, I do not support civilians--and that includes police--being able to possess automatic weapons, but I do support civilians being able to possess semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Most weapons the anti-gun lobby calls 'assault' weapons are semi-automatic rifles that fire only one single round at a time and simply look scary) is that they are of the opinion that the Second and Fourth Amendments are privileges, but the other Eight are rights... so long as those Amendments are being applied to them. When someone says, "wait a minute, I have the right to speak here, too," then the other Amendments become privileges as well.

The Constitution is either the "supreme law of the land," or it is not. If it is, it applies to everyone--whether you/we agree with them or not. Jeeze, even President Obama said the other day that the anti-gun lobby needs to listen a lot more than it does (after former President Clinton publicly warned him to take care on the issue of gun control). Likewise, the pro-gun, 2nd Amendment side of the issue needs to shut up and listen more than it does. A compromise can be found and it should be, because no law-abiding responsible person wants another Columbine, Sideshow Bob, or Sideshow Bob Redux: Sandy Hook.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

They aren't trying to get away with something, they are making a point. One that seems to be lost on you...

If I am going to fix your sink, I need a wrench. If I am going to talk a drunk guy into coming down to a station, I need a course in human interactions of some kind. If I am going to fly to the moon, I need a spaceship.

If I am a police officer, I may very well need a nightstick.

Is that clearer?

Just because you're a plumber doesn't mean I shouldn't keep a wrench around the house. Clearer?

...but we can all agree a police officer will require different tools to do their job (NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE EVER) than, say, your IT guy, right?

Of course. Firearms aren't much use in IT save tangentially.

That being said, the IT guy and the cop should both have access to (or ability to own, rather) the same weapons. Not for their jobs, but both as civilians. That the cop might use his on the job is, ultimately, unimportant; fighting criminals is (in theory) part of the job.

If I am going to fix your sink, I need a wrench. If I am going to talk a drunk guy into coming down to a station, I need a course in human interactions of some kind. If I am going to fly to the moon, I need a spaceship.

If I am a police officer, I may very well need a nightstick.

Is that clearer?

I don't have a problem with a cop having a nightstick. So long as I can have one, too.

dittybopper:OgreMagi: I faintly remember that. Didn't a significant number of the Marines say they would shoot the officer giving the order?

Here is the footnote about that particular question:

[i46.tinypic.com image 593x611]

You can read the entire survey, and the results, here at this link.

Hell. Yes.Most people don't realize, taking an oath in the Armed Forces of the US requires swearing to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic above all else.

Kit Fister:Eirik: craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.

And a number of neighborhoods spared looting and attack because there were armed people living there willing to shoot back.

Safety and security, and social peace are an illusion, broken when the collective will to accept the social order is diminished beyond the point of reason.

The police tried to disarm those shop owners. Their response was basically "fark off". Funny how the LAPD didn't have the manpower to deal with looting, but could spare an officer to harass honest people protecting their property.

PsiChick:craig328: I'm curious about this mindset and would like to ask a question. There are those who claim that the fundamental nature of the job of a police officer suggests they should be better armed than other, non-police civilians. What sort of situations do you discern the police requiring superior arms that civilians would not have an equal need to have?

Bank robberies? Those people in the bank are civilians and would be the first people with the opportunity to respond.

Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

Carjackings? Rapes? To such I'd ask how often a victim of such a crime has a personal police protector there 24/7 to ensure the presence of the police weapon to deter the crime?

Seriously, though...what situations do police encounter that require the presence of such weapons such that the situation doesn't affect civilians first and foremost?

Not 'superior'. 'Different'. I hate the idea of police with superior firepower to average people (and this makes the second time I've said this, so after this I'm just going to call anyone who goes with the 'YOU WANT POLICE TO HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS!' angle an idiot), but an average person doesn't need a nightstick. The average police officer, who is actively intervening in dangerous situations, probably does.

Also, your argument about police being stretched too thin to respond has nothing to do with the above point. Whether there are enough police or not does not change the job description.

Kit Fister: Actually, the amount of training varies greatly by unit and city. Many police departments do require a 1 year certification course, and some on the job training, but most departments do not provide "years" of on the job training, other than experience.

I've got a LOT of law enforcem ...

Sorry, but the law, and society, is not written to see police as special, and it has only come about that they are (in an accepted, socially acceptable way and not a thug-with-a-badge way) in the past 20 years or so.

The police SHOULD NOT be "Different", as you use the term, from the other citizenry in any way but their job being to confront criminals and enforce the laws. They are meant to be governed under the same rules as everyone else, and are held to the same standards.

Also, I would point out that while it's the job of the Cops to go confront a criminal, It's MY job to confront a criminal who comes to confront ME.

Now STOP with the glorification of cops. They would not NEED to be a militarized unit if the citizenry actually took more of an active role in policing their own. Just think, if more kids had positive role models and good parenting, maybe gangs wouldn't be so popular? And if drugs were legal, none of them would need to engage in violent behavior to protect an ILLEGAL trade.

odinsposse:The point a lot of people are making are that police are civilians. That apparently cannot be said enough. They are not military. They are civilians. Law enforcement is not a military group. Your local police are not part of the military command. Your state police are not related to the national guard or army bases. Federal police work is done by Department of Justice, not the Pentagon. Police are civilians.

craig328:I'm curious about this mindset and would like to ask a question. There are those who claim that the fundamental nature of the job of a police officer suggests they should be better armed than other, non-police civilians. What sort of situations do you discern the police requiring superior arms that civilians would not have an equal need to have?

Bank robberies? Those people in the bank are civilians and would be the first people with the opportunity to respond.

Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

Carjackings? Rapes? To such I'd ask how often a victim of such a crime has a personal police protector there 24/7 to ensure the presence of the police weapon to deter the crime?

Seriously, though...what situations do police encounter that require the presence of such weapons such that the situation doesn't affect civilians first and foremost?

Not 'superior'. 'Different'. I hate the idea of police with superior firepower to average people (and this makes the second time I've said this, so after this I'm just going to call anyone who goes with the 'YOU WANT POLICE TO HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS!' angle an idiot), but an average person doesn't need a nightstick. The average police officer, who is actively intervening in dangerous situations, probably does.

Also, your argument about police being stretched too thin to respond has nothing to do with the above point. Whether there are enough police or not does not change the job description.

Kit Fister:Actually, the amount of training varies greatly by unit and city. Many police departments do require a 1 year certification course, and some on the job training, but most departments do not provide "years" of on the job training, other than experience.

I've got a LOT of law enforcement colleagues and training partners, and I mix with a lot of officers, new and old, at various training seminars, and outside of SWAT, most department officers that come to various emergency response and other types of classes are ridiculously inept and undertrained, and most of the civilians in the class are usually better equipped, because they don't suffer from the "I'm a cop, therefore I'm somehow a super badass that doesn't have to deal with all these rules" issues. In fact, where a lot of the guys i see fall flat fail is going slow and learning, rather than rushing in and acting like they already know everything.

Cops that are good, are good because of experience doing their job. They are also the guys who spend time and energy to go out to training seminars and engage in voluntary extra training in a lot of fields above and beyond what they need for their day to day activities. A larger part of that group, however, are little better trained than the average TactiCool Joe who put on a badge and went through the training academy.

Any assertion that police are now some sort of paramilitary force that are not civilians but are some special excerpt of society is both laughable and, in the general sense of things, scary.

Well, the training part I got off Google when I was doing research for a character. However, I am not using 'different' as synonymous with 'special', please don't confuse that. The police are different. A civilian does not hold the job description of 'confronts criminals and goes into dangerous situations to resolve them'. And yes, the police are a paramilitary force, because 'paramilitary' means 'a group that uses military rankings and traditions to perform a task but are not formally a national military'. I don't care if America's police all moonlight as strippers on Broadway; it doesn't change the job description.

The police are consequently not in a war with the general public, no matter how much 'war on crime' rhetoric is used. They don't need assault weapons any more than the general public, because they live and work where we live and work. If anyone needs assault weapons, it's the people who live in the places that are too dangerous for the police to work without them.

No, a civilian in the typical sense of the word is not simply nonmilitary, it also applies to those who are not attached to paramilitary organizations. In common usage, words occasionally have more than their dictionary definition. And I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLICE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED.

OgreMagi:Fine, you are still wrong. They are civililans and are supposed to abide by the same laws as we do. In fact, they need to be held to a higher standard because they are in a position to abuse the trust (power) we have given to them.

/And seriously, all of you: I am not going to say this again. I do not believe police are 'special' or even not wholeheartedly corrupt. I DO NOT BELIEVE POLICE SHOULD EVER HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS. I am really getting sick of saying this. Whether or not your IT guy slept with your wife has jack shiat to do with whether your IT guy will use a thumb drive.

PsiChick:Epicedion: PsiChick: ...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian.

A whole year? Wow. They must be the most well-trained and responsible people on the planet.

Joe Blowme: But they are people just like you and me and can go psycho just as easy as you or me... just looks a that Vegas cop who killed his family the other day. They are not super heroes. Just look at all the police corruption in Chicago and other cities. History, how does it work?

OgreMagi: The fundamental difference is regular gun owners are better trained with their firearms than the police. Gun owners tend to go to the range on a regular basis, many go every week. Police officers go once a year or two to practice up for their legally required qualification. They tend to be terrible shots.

It would be so nice if people paid attention to the actual point I was making. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact that, even if police officers tend to be undertrained assholes, even in my own opinion, a civilian and police officer are different things and logically will need different weapons. It's about the fundamental nature of 'police officer' v. 'civilian', not the current state of America's police force.

No, it happens to be about constitutional rights. As other have stated, there is a way to amend the constitution but no one seems to want to try that because thy know it would fail so they will try to doit via executive orders and such. Civilians ofter face the same dangers as police, only we do it before the cops arrive.

PsiChick:...in my own opinion, a civilian and police officer are different things and logically will need different weapons. It's about the fundamental nature of 'police officer' v. 'civilian', not the current state of America's police force.

I'm curious about this mindset and would like to ask a question. There are those who claim that the fundamental nature of the job of a police officer suggests they should be better armed than other, non-police civilians. What sort of situations do you discern the police requiring superior arms that civilians would not have an equal need to have?

Bank robberies? Those people in the bank are civilians and would be the first people with the opportunity to respond.

Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

Carjackings? Rapes? To such I'd ask how often a victim of such a crime has a personal police protector there 24/7 to ensure the presence of the police weapon to deter the crime?

Seriously, though...what situations do police encounter that require the presence of such weapons such that the situation doesn't affect civilians first and foremost?

PsiChick:Epicedion: PsiChick: Or, you know, police have jobs requiring them to deal with violent nutjobs and just might need more specialized tools than are available to the general public.

I don't buy it, since the police aren't traipsing off to Violent Nutjobville to do their jobs. The violent nutjobs are in and around the general public. I'd say that the general public has a vested interest in being equivalently prepared to deal with the violent nutjobs, and the only difference is that the general public is legally discouraged from actively engaging with the violent nutjobs (but not severely restricted in the case that the violent nutjobs avail themselves to be unavoidable).

...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian.

Actually, the amount of training varies greatly by unit and city. Many police departments do require a 1 year certification course, and some on the job training, but most departments do not provide "years" of on the job training, other than experience.

I've got a LOT of law enforcement colleagues and training partners, and I mix with a lot of officers, new and old, at various training seminars, and outside of SWAT, most department officers that come to various emergency response and other types of classes are ridiculously inept and undertrained, and most of the civilians in the class are usually better equipped, because they don't suffer from the "I'm a cop, therefore I'm somehow a super badass that doesn't have to deal with all these rules" issues. In fact, where a lot of the guys i see fall flat fail is going slow and learning, rather than rushing in and acting like they already know everything.

Cops that are good, are good because of experience doing their job. They are also the guys who spend time and energy to go out to training seminars and engage in voluntary extra training in a lot of fields above and beyond what they need for their day to day activities. A larger part of that group, however, are little better trained than the average TactiCool Joe who put on a badge and went through the training academy.

Any assertion that police are now some sort of paramilitary force that are not civilians but are some special excerpt of society is both laughable and, in the general sense of things, scary.

Wayne 985:Ethically, he's not wrong at all. The 13th amendment prohibits slavery. The 3rd prohibits troops from quartering themselves in your home. Those are not of equal value and the 13th is clearly more important.

That's only because one is more currently relevant than the other. Slavery is still very much alive in America, but the military is so over-funded that basic quartering would never be a problem for them.

Maybe one day the situation will be different. All the amendments are equally important, some are just more current issues than the others.

PsiChick:Epicedion: PsiChick: Or, you know, police have jobs requiring them to deal with violent nutjobs and just might need more specialized tools than are available to the general public.

I don't buy it, since the police aren't traipsing off to Violent Nutjobville to do their jobs. The violent nutjobs are in and around the general public. I'd say that the general public has a vested interest in being equivalently prepared to deal with the violent nutjobs, and the only difference is that the general public is legally discouraged from actively engaging with the violent nutjobs (but not severely restricted in the case that the violent nutjobs avail themselves to be unavoidable).

...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian.

The fundamental difference is regular gun owners are better trained with their firearms than the police. Gun owners tend to go to the range on a regular basis, many go every week. Police officers go once a year or two to practice up for their legally required qualification. They tend to be terrible shots.

ZeroPly:Wayne 985: craig328: Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year.

Automatic weapons are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own in the United States. Don't pretend like they're even remotely common.

This is just flat-out wrong. It's been addressed before in this thread, but if you're willing to do the paperwork, you can get pre-1986 fully automatic weapons. The guy working across the street from me used to have a belt fed Browning that he had to tow on a trailer. Fully automatic weapons aren't as common because they're pricey, not because they're illegal.

Exactly. Manufacture for the civilian market is now a crime. The "pricey-ness" is also a form of regulation via the National Firearms Act.

HeWhoHasNoName:Wayne 985: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner.

You're dead wrong about not all rights being equal (although it's very revealing about how you think... yuck, by the way)...

Ethically, he's not wrong at all. The 13th amendment prohibits slavery. The 3rd prohibits troops from quartering themselves in your home. Those are not of equal value and the 13th is clearly more important.

I would call them of equal - priceless - value. Having agents of a militaristic police state stationed in my own home, eating my food, listening to my private conversations, going through my things, taking my possessions as they desire, observing my activities within my own dwelling, reporting it all back to their government commanders and shackling me at the first observed transgression is as abhorrent to me as being sold and chained up in the fields on a plantation.

To me, a government soldier-enforcer in every bedroom is slavery to a police state, and the very notion is as repugnant to me as slavery to a cotton mogul.

My friend, if you think American soldiers bunking down in your house for the night is as bad as a woman being sold, mutilated, raped, and beaten to death at her "owner's" whim, then you are very sheltered and have a poor understanding of history.

stonicus:How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks.

Let's see here...how about we start listing the most recent examples that sink your ill-considered argument: Egypt, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam. That's just the ones you might have heard of. None of those had civilians with superior or even equal arms. Still, they fought governments who had satellites, carriers, jets and tanks...and they did (or are doing) well enough. In fact, when civilians take up arms in defense of their homes and families, they have a pretty good track record. Maybe consider making the acquaintance of a history book sometime.

Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should.

Well, yet another illiterate turd. How unsurprising. Tell you what, while I'd be glad to copy pasta the 2nd Amendment for you, you've already demonstrated a kryptonite weakness to reading. How about a nice video instead?

Seriously, it's only 90 seconds. Just think...in less than 2 minutes, you can be exponentionally smarter than you are right now. Who wouldn't want that?

enforcerpsu:morgen_benner: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

I'l bite, though I truly hope I'm feeding a troll:

DC vs Heller ruled that we indeed do have the right to private ownership.

Anyone who tries to tell me the 2nd amendment was referring to a state militia instantly gets labeled as an idiot because the 2nd amendment clearly defines an individual's right to own firearms. This has been beaten to death and that side of the argument needs to stop using it. It makes them look extremely ignorant.

Wayne 985:Joe Blowme: stonicus: craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed"

How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks.

Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should.

And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right?

And now lets see if you kow the definition of well regulated in the late 1700's, im guessing you dont but please continue

Wayne 985:I think it's important to distinguish between gun nuts and gun owners. I've owned guns. I've also never had paranoid delusions about fighting the American government and murdering cops, unlike gun nuts.

I've never had paranoid delusions about either myself.

I *HAVE* talked about the subject in the abstract, of course, at least the idea of an armed citizenry potentially resisting a government that becomes tyrannical. If you want me to list the reasons why it could be more effective than you might think, I can.

Besides which, we've taken that name back: I'm a proud gun nut. You know what I own? A couple of bolt action rifles, and a flintlock. That's it. But I'm a gun nut nonetheless, and I stand in solidarity with my fellow gun nuts.

Perducci:"It is a constitutional issue. I mean, it's not just a Second Amendment constitutional issue; but it's also a constitutional issue for Vermont. We have laws that have the state governing our gun controls in this area and they're looking to supersede those," he said.

Because laws can never change over time, right genius?

Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.

Because the Constitution is supposed to be important. That's why. You want it to change? Fine, there are procedures to make changes. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. You can't simply change the meaning of the Constitution just because you don't like something.

Keeping fully automatic guns out of civilian hands makes people more safe. I'd rather keep what exists in the hands of police and military.

I'd rather not have a civilian paramilitary group (police) have a decisive advantage over the people they're supposed to be protecting. Hells, I'd rather we not have such a large military with such advantage. Near-monopolies on effective violence rarely end well for those outside said monopoly.

Wayne 985:Joe Blowme: stonicus: craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed"

How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks.

Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should.

And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right?

DC v Heller:

"Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms"). "

PsiChick:Or, you know, police have jobs requiring them to deal with violent nutjobs and just might need more specialized tools than are available to the general public.

I don't buy it, since the police aren't traipsing off to Violent Nutjobville to do their jobs. The violent nutjobs are in and around the general public. I'd say that the general public has a vested interest in being equivalently prepared to deal with the violent nutjobs, and the only difference is that the general public is legally discouraged from actively engaging with the violent nutjobs (but not severely restricted in the case that the violent nutjobs avail themselves to be unavoidable).

Wayne 985:I grew up around cops and still know a few. I guarantee they work harder and are more discipline than the average person. There's a reason they're given special rights to provide a safe society.

I don't care what you guarantee. You guaranteeing such a thing is totally worthless. Why don't you come back with some statistics on misuse or criminal use of firearms by police and compare them to the general public?

stonicus:craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed"

How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks.

Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should.

And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right?

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

Good idea. In fact lets also let teachers be considered Civilians and allow them to arm themselves just like the cops.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts?

Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

What YOU fail to admit is that a person willing to commit murder will do it with what ever means are available to them be it a gun, knife, pillow, shoe lace etc. Ban them all and you will still have people dying at the hands of others. In the end it's the person, not the item that is the problem.It's eaiser to ban a scary gun than to deal with the real issue of this topic and that is mental illness, the 800 pound gorrila in the room.

And the argument you're missing is twofold.

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that ...

and five kids in the US die eveyday from child abuse, that's a Sandy Hook every week ..

It's the Dichotomy of Living in Vermont.You got your sensitive city slickers in Burlington, who happily lived with one of Charley Manson's girls walking among them, Fearing the big bad boogie man with a gun. Made up of Sensitive ponytailed dudes in Birkenstocks, and lesbians in full regalia on any given day, Walking about church street, letting their freak flags fly.35 miles away, you got Lamoille County. Bunch of small towns, joined by Rt 15, and covered in cow shiat.Different attitudes and different ideas. Now because some of the fine people of Lamoille County have friends in the city, and the city government wants to impose a non federal and non state regulation on them, they decide not to cow tow to the city boys. Especially those who have used the range pro bono for years. Seems fair.Let them put their own gun range in on the farking intervale.Let them build their own range in the city. With city tax dollars.Me, I live in the cow shiat covered town and can shoot in my own back yard when I want to, and if I see a state trooper on my road, I walk out, because he's probably lost, anyway.

justtray:That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that ...

I'm not sure if you are trolling or merely incredibly uninformed. Virginia tech resulted in far more deaths using two pistols with standard magazine capacities, one of which was a 10 shot 22lr. Columbine happened during an assault weapons ban. Aaron Harris fired by far the most shots using a 9mm gun that had 10 round magazines. The level of "distruction" of the round an AR15 is chambered in is much, much less than that of a typical deer rifle or pump shotgun, weapons which will likely never be banned.

You talk an awful lot about things you don't understand. I recommend Assaultweapon.info as a nice introduction into the basics.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

I would support this law.

I'm tired of SWAT teams being used to serve warrants for non-violent offenses that gets innocent people killed. Take away their assault rifles, flash bangs, and tanks.

So the majority should be made less safe...being the ones who are preyed upon by violent criminals...so that cops can outgun the criminals?

Cops don't guard peoples' houses. They aren't required to help you. They can literally decide not to respond to your cries for help, and nothing will happen to them. The fact that they would be better-armed than the criminals who ran away after doing their work would be scant comfort.

justtray:If you're implying I think they should have no limit, again, poor mischaracterization of my argument. Im simply stating they should be at an advantage from the 'dangerous criminals' as you put it.

...the same criminals which prey upon the general public, who in your world is less equal than police and has no "need" or "worth" to defend themselves from such dangers.

You are the very type of person the Continental Army was shooting at.

And someone like yourself gaining power in this nation and attempting to implement your ideologies is exactly the contingency the 2nd Amendment was written to address.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says.

You know, we didn't make that right up out of whole cloth. It has roots in our common legal history that go back a thousand years. We just decided that it was more important than your immediate ancestors, apparently.

I can understand why you deride it, just like I can understand how the phrase "money doesn't make you happy" is a perennial favorite of the economically downtrodden. I mean, it's sad in a "sour grapes" sort of way, but I understand how you feel.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says.

Coming from a guy whose country didn't even have a constitution til around 20 years ago, you probably have a little catching up to do on what a "right" is.

Here in the United States, that right is elucidated like so: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

In other words, you're not only ignorant but you seem to be proud of it. Nice combo you got going there sport.

It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be.

And the more draconian the legislation is, the more people will defy it. Mass noncompliance.

I doubt it. People love to pretend like they'll be the martyrs, but when push comes to shove only the vast forgotten minority have the guts to be the one to fall on the sword.

Gun nuts are the minority. A shrinking one.

Really? All the evidence suggests otherwise.

Gun sales are at an all-time high. Gun owners are becoming younger and more female, and the talk now is the split between "Gun Culture 1.0" and "Gun Culture 2.0". The number of hunting licenses sold has started to increase after a couple decades of decline. It's up 9% over the last 5 years.

justtray:Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it.

Rights don't work that way.

Rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights specifically to protect them from being trampled by the majority. If those rights didn't have costs attached to them, they wouldn't need protection because nobody would particularly care if you exercised them or not.

For example, you have the right to collect bellybutton lint. That's not enshrined in the Constitution however because nobody really cares if you do it or not. There is no cost to society for you to collect such lint or not as you may choose.

But there can be serious costs to society for the other rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to be secure in your person and effects from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to remain silent, the right to be compensated for property seized by the government, and yes, the right to keep and bear arms *ALL* have a significant cost to society.

Some of those costs are indirect: We'll probably never get a good accounting of the number of people robbed, raped, or murdered because the Fourth and Fifth Amendments prevented the police from doing certain actions that could have prevented them. But we know there *IS* a cost involved there.

The Second Amendment is no different: Yes, there is a cost in human lives. As a nation, we recognize this, and we've still kept it for over 200 years now.

If at some point society as a whole decides it is no longer worth the cost, well, there is a mechanism to change that: Amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment.

I know the US State Department discourages Americans from traveling there because of the extremely draconian punishments doled out for crimes that are prosecuted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in kangaroo courts.

justtray:I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.

It was the only argument you advanced to rebut what I said. Sorry if it was a particularly shiatty argument (and it was ridiculously so) but hey, you chose it not me.

So, back to the point I made that you disagree with: violent crime in the UK is 4x that of the United States per capita and I suggested that the reason their crime rate is so high compared to us was that thugs worldwide do take a moment and consider the possible consequences to their potential actions. Ergo, this is why you hardly ever hear of a uniformed police officer being raped, robbed, etc. Those guys (in the U.S.) are armed and they'd be a particularly bad witness at any subsequent trial.

Since we dispensed with the whole population density rubbish, what makes you think that criminals in the United States aren't deterred by the possibility their victim might be armed? I mean, rapes are much lower, armed robbery is much lower, assault and battery is much much lower...all crimes wherein the criminal has to be in direct physical contact with the victim. You truly believe the mind of the criminal is so hell bent on mayhem that they don't consider such things as how it might could affect them? Really?

justtray:HeWhoHasNoName: justtray:I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

America is not about being "safe".

Totalitarian states who control every aspect of their subject's lives and kill those who are deemed problematic to the State - like the kind my grandfather and millions of others fought and bled to topple - are about being "safe".

America is about being free.

If you're using Singapore as a supporting argument in a debate about American legal and constitutional theory, you're in the completely wrong place.

Good thing im not then.

Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully.

justtray:morgen_benner: justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.

Singapore as a model society? Never thought I'd see the day...

I know it sounds cliche, but if you liked it so much and it was so safe, why are you not still living there?

I never said any or those things and if you took that away, you misunderstood. Also, youve never been there so please don't ignorantly disparage it.

It is not a model society, they have a horrible income distribution, but that doesnt mean there are aspects that are beneficial for our society in the US. Manditory savings taken out of your check not put in a magic hat called social security, for example.

Holy crap...you really do want to sacrifice all your freedoms don't you? Why? Don't deflect, don't change the subject, please. I am genuinely curious as to why you would not only tolerate, but welcome the removal of all your freedom.

Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts.

Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though.

Couple of things here:

1/ Do you even know what "cognitive dissonance" means? Or do you just parrot the term because it sounded cool?2/ Do you suggest that all the violent crime in the UK occurs in London? Otherwise, why mention it?

But hey, let's dispense with your ignorant bullshiat for a moment and get down to brass tacks. You fairly baldly stated: "Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density". Fair enough. Let's look into that. Who has some of the highest population densities in the world? Well, according to the wikipedia, that'd be crime ridden places like Singapore, Taiwan and Bahrain. Surely those places have violent crime rates commensurate with their population densities. Oh, no, wait...they don't.

In fact, in those places, guess what you have? You have a very harsh legal system that criminals know will mean the consequences of their actions will likely be quite dire. That is to say: if they consider committing a crime, they're also considering the possible ramifications. How about that?

Or maybe it doesn't have all that much to do with how close everybody's mailbox is to everyone else. Either or, right?

I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

Their populace lives in a state of fear of their government. They simply don't have the rights and freedom we do. They quite literally fear death if they do something "illegal.". I'm glad I live here and not Singapore. You can very easily move back if you want...ya ya I know.

muck4doo:rufus-t-firefly: Gosling: BgJonson79: Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are.

It's called commandeering. If the cops NEED to have a facility to train their personnel, and your gun range is the only facility in the area, guess what? Your gun range is now a police training facility.

Eminent domain.

"Here's a check for what we say your property is worth...it's ours now."

I'm shocked that those who support gun grabbing also support land grabbing.

Probably a significant overlap between those who hate DC v Heller, but support Kelo v New London.

justtray:I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.

Singapore as a model society? Never thought I'd see the day...

I know it sounds cliche, but if you liked it so much and it was so safe, why are you not still living there?

dofus:macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

This. This. A dozen times this.

This constant harping about banning assault weapons "is taking away our God-given Constitutional Rights" is a load of baloney. M-16s are banned and (almost) no one biatches about it. The AR-15 is (was) a semi-auto M-16 before the Rambo Wannabes started making hot rods out of them.

The NRA doesn't give a damn where the legal/illegal bar is set. It gets paid by the people who manufacture hot rod parts at absurd profit margins.

/Wouldn't vote for an assault weapons ban//What would be the point?///There's already thousands (millions?) of unregistered/untraceable units out there

justtray:HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement.

Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians.

Care to make any other logically implosive arguments?

It does make them worthy of carrying better weapons than regular civilians though, in my mind. I understand that you disagree. I just think your line of argument here is stupid and dishonest, and I explained why earlier.

Explain to us exactly where you believe they stop being "regular civilians" and become "super civilians" who are more equal than others.

I think that people who have been assigned the job of protecting the populace by upholding the laws, while under supervision of the government and all applicable responsibility are required to use weapons that are unsafe in the hands of citizens, while on duty.

Why? Because their lives are somehow worth more than normal civilians?

enforcerpsu:morgen_benner: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

I'l bite, though I truly hope I'm feeding a troll:

DC vs Heller ruled that we indeed do have the right to private ownership.

Anyone who tries to tell me the 2nd amendment was referring to a state militia instantly gets labeled as an idiot because the 2nd amendment clearly defines an individual's right to own firearms. This has been beaten to death and that side of the argument needs to stop using it. It makes them look extremely ignorant.

Agreed. Citing a supreme court ruling was just driving home the proverbial nail. "Militia" was already defined in the Constitution.

justtray:HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: And the argument you're missing is twofold.

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that the goal isnt total prevention, but to lower gun related homicide.

Again, argument soundly defeated.

Then try to ban handguns. They account for the lion's share of deaths due to firearms (some of them are even unlawful homicides, as opposed to justifiable homicide as self defense, or shootings by law enforcement).

The weapons you are focusing on are involved in such a small percentage of overall deaths, much less violent crime, that they are statistically insignificant. The DoJ itself concluded that their use in crime was so minial before, during, and after the 1994 ban that it was impossible to calculate any discernible impact from the federal ban.

But let's ignore all that for a moment. Let's take a look at the ban Sen. Feinstien has proposed. From the text of that bill, explain to me exactly how any measure of that law will directly prevent violent crime. Find one part of the statute that will directly and demonstrably BLOCK a criminal act.

We'll sit here while you search in vain.

Even the bill's author and sponsors admit it won't do that, or even come close. You are championing supposed benefits of a law that even those who wrote it openly and explicitly admit it is incapable of.

I dont want to ban any guns. I just want to tax them based on their rates of risk, as per the free market. I also want registration to force liability.

But you do make a sound argument that if we should ban something, banning handguns would be more effective in lowering gun related homicide, and i agree.

Do you also support taxing people to vote? And assigning monetary and civil liability to people who vote for extremist candidates?

dofus:macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

This. This. A dozen times this.

This constant harping about banning assault weapons "is taking away our God-given Constitutional Rights" is a load of baloney. M-16s are banned and (almost) no one biatches about it. The AR-15 is (was) a semi-auto M-16 before the Rambo Wannabes started making hot rods out of them.

The NRA doesn't give a damn where the legal/illegal bar is set. It gets paid by the people who manufacture hot rod parts at absurd profit margins.

/Wouldn't vote for an assault weapons ban//What would be the point?///There's already thousands (millions?) of unregistered/untraceable units out there

Alonjar:gja: OK, here we go.....The Police are NOT required to protect you. That is an understood truth. The laws and charter for their service bear this assertion out.Hence, they need no firepower greater than the populous at large (John Q Public).They do NOT receive training that is in any way equal to the armed forces.They are not afforded the latitude in their duties that the armed forces are given.(There is rarely, if ever, a need for a soldier or a Marine to file a report after killing an enemy. The police must always file and undergo investigation).So, if what I have read many times over is fair ("only trained military people should have these guns") and the police are none of them, then they should not have anything the public is not entitled to possess.

The police are not required to protect individuals. FACT.They do not undergo training equal to the armed forces. FACTAnytime they discharge their weapon (of any type) whether or not a death is involved, there are reports and investigations. FACTMany times has it been said, in reference to what we are typifying as 'Assault weapons/rifles' that "Only the trained military should have these".You can find it said all over FARK and sites too numerous to deny it's utterance.

The police are NOT military, nor even Para-military. They are a civilian law enforcement. So one would rationally and logically conclude they need only the level of weaponry on par with those they are chartered with enforcing laws on.

Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts.

Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though.

Couple of things here:

1/ Do you even know what "cognitive dissonance" means? Or do you just parrot the term because it sounded cool?2/ Do you suggest that all the violent crime in the UK occurs in London? Otherwise, why mention it?

But hey, let's dispense with your ignorant bullshiat for a moment and get down to brass tacks. You fairly baldly stated: "Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density". Fair enough. Let's look into that. Who has some of the highest population densities in the world? Well, according to the wikipedia, that'd be crime ridden places like Singapore, Taiwan and Bahrain. Surely those places have violent crime rates commensurate with their population densities. Oh, no, wait...they don't.

In fact, in those places, guess what you have? You have a very harsh legal system that criminals know will mean the consequences of their actions will likely be quite dire. That is to say: if they consider committing a crime, they're also considering the possible ramifications. How about that?

Or maybe it doesn't have all that much to do with how close everybody's mailbox is to everyone else. Either or, right?

And we do so only when there is absolute clarity that the limitation of that right will have a meaningful, demonstrable impact on public safety.

This is the contention of this debate; there is no farking data to say that banning so called "assault weapons" will have any meaningful impact on actual public safety.

1- They are used in a statistically insignificant portion of overall firearm crimes (less than 2%).2- There is no data to support that the use of an "assault weapon" has any impact on the lethality of those crimes (i.e. they would just as easily happened had another weapon been used).3- There is data to suggest that the limitation of these weapons in civilian hands would be detrimental to the cause of legal self defense (especially magazine capacity bans).

On this last point, I would say that there are almost no scenarios where a 30 round AR magazine has been necessary for a citizen to defend themselves, but there are *many* cases where civilians have needed more than 10 rounds to adequately defend themselves. There is also little/no data to suggest that magazine capacity has an impact on actual firearm crimes though.

So yes, we do understand that Constitutional rights have limitations. Where we disagree is in the belief that limiting the 2nd Amendment, as is being proposed currently, offers any net benefit to society.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

The one time this backfired was the North Hollywood bank robbery shoot- out, where the criminals waaaay outgunned the cops. Not saying it's reason to have cops armed to the teeth, however.

The criminals of the "North Hollywood Shootout" used firearms not legally available to civilians (the criminals utilized firearm models already prohibited to civilians in the United States due to the ease by which they could be converted to fully automatic operation).

dr-shotgun:Bomb Head Mohammed: oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Anyone calling for a ban on assault weapons doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence, given how astoundingly rare their use in crime actually is.

Gun control advocates don't use statistics or proof. They know that black guns with rails are scary looking and they don't like them. They are convinced that banning black scary guns will solve our violent crime problem even though they aren't even remotely connected.

You can do all this research directly on FBI.gov. You don't have to be a statistician to understand it.

What are we going to ban next? Assault muffins? How about we put scary black rails on a potato and call it an assault potato?

AbiNormal:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

So in keeping with the spirit of freedom, and recognizing that the 2nd is a limit on government, arms should be interpreted as broadly as possible, and at least as broadly as speech, assembly, etc. are in the 1st.

You are correct. Such a claim is as stupid and irrational as the claim that the presence of a pistol grip on a semi-automatic rifle causes the rifle to be more dangerous and lethal than a rifle of the same model but without a pistol grip.

dittybopper:justtray: Is clearly not about not wanting police to have superior firepower. Its about trying to get someone to say, "police have to have it," so then you can say, "if they do we do too!" And that argument is just never going to gain traction amongst non gun nuts.

You've got it backwards: We already have it. The police already have it. It's been that way for decades, and we're fine with it.

Now the government (in this case, a local one) wants to make it so that only the police have it.

Perducci:"It is a constitutional issue. I mean, it's not just a Second Amendment constitutional issue; but it's also a constitutional issue for Vermont. We have laws that have the state governing our gun controls in this area and they're looking to supersede those," he said.

Because laws can never change over time, right genius?

Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.

Well, guess what: that document is the basis for our nation and is the fundamental principles upon which our society is based. Don't like it? Don't live here. I don't come to YOUR farking country and tell YOU how to live, do I?

justtray:HeWhoHasNoName: Big Man On Campus: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts?

Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

What YOU fail to admit is that a person willing to commit murder will do it with what ever means are available to them be it a gun, knife, pillow, shoe lace etc. Ban them all and you will still have people dying at the hands of others. In the end it's the person, not the item that is the problem.It's eaiser to ban a scary gun than to deal with the real issue of this topic and that is mental illness, the 800 pound gorrila in the room.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

No, they're not "same as the military". Federal, state and local governments are different things with different levels of power and responsibility. The military is managed by the Federal government and is specifically designed to fight the country's enemies. Deploying them internally, or turning the local police into a proxy version, makes the citizenry "the enemy".

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

They aren't trying to get away with something, they are making a point. One that seems to be lost on you...

OK, here we go.....The Police are NOT required to protect you. That is an understood truth. The laws and charter for their service bear this assertion out.Hence, they need no firepower greater than the populous at large (John Q Public).They do NOT receive training that is in any way equal to the armed forces.They are not afforded the latitude in their duties that the armed forces are given.(There is rarely, if ever, a need for a soldier or a Marine to file a report after killing an enemy. The police must always file and undergo investigation).So, if what I have read many times over is fair ("only trained military people should have these guns") and the police are none of them, then they should not have anything the public is not entitled to possess.

dr-shotgun:Bomb Head Mohammed: oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Anyone calling for a ban on assault weapons doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence, given how astoundingly rare their use in crime actually is.

While some assault weapons ban advocates are genuinely ignorant, others are aware of the statistical rarity of their criminal misuse but advocate a ban because they believe civilian firearm ownership to be abhorrent in general and are attempting to use such a ban as a starting point for total civilian disarmament. "Conservative" pundit Charles Krauthammer actually endorsed the "assault weapons ban" of 1994 as a "good idea" because of an expressed belief that the citizenry of the United States of America eventually needed to be fully disarmed.

Thunderpipes:It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.

This thread is nothing but gun rights advocates misinterpreting the posts of other gun rights advocates and presuming every post without their name on it is a anti-gun rant before reading the thread.Hold your fire boys, I think them's friendlies.

Dimensio:Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

The Brady Center will be unhappy until all civilian owned firearms are confiscated and all current civilian firearm owners are imprisoned and their assets seized by the government.

/My statement is as accurate as yours.

Actually, your statement is a LOT closer to the truth. They want zero guns, but they'll take what they can get. If you disobey a law they manage to help get passed, does anyone doubt the proponents of that law would oppose sending your law-breaking ass to prison?

Bomb Head Mohammed:oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Anyone calling for a ban on assault weapons doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence, given how astoundingly rare their use in crime actually is.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

They aren't trying to get away with something, they are making a point. One that seems to be lost on you...

Because they are civillians themselves and in no sense need to outgun the public to perform their duties.

I said without semantic argument. Police are law enforcement. Civilians are NOT.

Words have meanings for a reason. There is a reason the Posse Comitatus Act was passed in the US. Military and police are two separate things. They exist at separate levels of government. The county coroner might be an elected official, but he is still a civilian. The Chief of Police and Sheriff are likewise civilians.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

They aren't trying to get away with something, they are making a point. One that seems to be lost on you...

I don't know what is going on in their brains but I might assume that this was done as a way of standing up to government as a whole.

Not everyone views police, firemen, soldiers, etc as some separate entity simply doing their duty while the wrong is only caused by guys in suits behind desks. By putting pressure across the board in different ways they might have more success in achieving their goals.

What the heck VT. That state likely has the lowest crime rates in the country. Lowest gun crime too I think i read. They've got bigger fish to fry. Actually they don't. Other than actual fish.

It's like when CA was talking about ban high cal rifles their departments used, even though they had been used in zero crimes. Barrett said we will no longer service your rifles, or sell you any more rifles or parts.

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly. Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

Argument defeated.

Which only proves what everbody already knows. Some people need to be shot.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

They aren't trying to get away with something, they are making a point. One that seems to be lost on you...

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

They aren't trying to get away with something, they are making a point. One that seems to be lost on you...

Bomb Head Mohammed:Dimensio: I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.

oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Appeal to authority is logically fallacious. President Reagan advocating a prohibition upon a rarely criminally misused class of firearms based upon the presence of characteristics that do not affect firearm function is not validation of such a prohibition.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

[ametia.files.wordpress.com image 470x325]

Not that I don't get your point, but those are fire fighters in your picture.

Itstoearly:Thunderpipes: It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.

Burlington is not as pro gun as the rest of Vermont. Burlington is also the most liberal spot in Vermont.

Burlington leadership you mean. The average Burlington resident is not so different. But... the thousands of college kids, progressive city leaders are way out of whack. The more reasonable Burlington people just don't make much noise. They showed up at city hall to protest the gun ban though.

It's the owner's business; they are well within their rights to disallow any person from the range that they want to.

How many jobs would a comprehensive ban cost? Lots. Not only in the manufacturering sector, but also the retail gun industry. It would end up costing each state millions in hunting permits; FFL fees, ect. It would also destroy the farm game bird industry.

Thunderpipes:It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.

Burlington is not as pro gun as the rest of Vermont. Burlington is also the most liberal spot in Vermont.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

Good! It's about time we started standing up to the TYRANNY of these government thugs. The next time you have to deal with one of these Statist Pigs, I want you to remain calm, cool, and colllected, but be ready to exercise your right to protect yourself as laid forth by the Founding Fathers to prevent this type of tyranny at the hands of "lawmen".

Or, you could just take it right to the BROWNSHIRTS and don't wait for them to come for you. The Tyrants never expected this. I bet 0bamma was quaking in his loafers when he heard about this True Patriot.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.